Could you imagine the abuse of that system???? -- people having mysterious deficiencies that don't allow them to work? It's already a well documented abuse in our safety net programs. Anyone who has ever worked in a manufacturing environments knows the institutional knowledge about doctors who are plug and play for disability and workman's comp.

Then of course, exceptions would have to be made for people who have kids...who are taking care of parents...etc etc.

I take that back...I'm sure free daycare isn't far off next for the progressives so maybe that job obstacle will be eliminated.

deltbucs wrote:So here's my thinking. We kind of have 4 options as I see it for unemployed poor people. 1. Let them starve and die.2. They end up in jail/prison.3. Give them government assistance.4. They get a job.I don't think it's a terrible idea for the government to give them a job and make them work for it instead of the government just paying for them to live in jail/prison or give them welfare. I could see it argued that paying them $15 an hour is too much, but if you don't pay them a living wage, they're back on government assistance.

So, mandatory work, right? In other words, if you're unemployed, instead of welfare, you either take this job (if you're physically able of course), or you can starve and die.

I'm not sure where you got that from my post. Hint: Look at option #3.

This is like the third or fourth time in the past couple months I'm feeling the Bern...you Trumptards better watch out....soon enough I'll be mandating book deals and 3rd vacation homes for everyone!

The No Money Bail Act would prohibit the federal government from using any payment of money as a condition of pretrial release for criminal cases. It would call for grants to develop alternatives to money bail and to improve pretrial practices with the aim of reducing the number of people detained in jail prior to trial. And it would push states to come along with the shift by denying them access to Justice Department grants if they continue using money bail.

No cash bail is something I have talked about with my buddies here forever. Bern is certainly on the right direction here so a big kudos to him.

Though I think some specifics of the bill aren't very good:

1.) The federal gov't should not be telling or incentivizing the states what to do in state prisons. The federal gov't should set a great example that states WANT to adopt.2.) The bill needs to do a better job discussing alternatives to cash bail than simply saying to throw cash at researching them. If we don't have viable alternatives the bill shouldn't be passed. For the record I do think we have viable alternatives.3.) The bill needs to discuss and hopefully alleviate the possible negative consequences from the action - namely, the possibility that judges increase the possibility of no bail for far more defendents

deltbucs wrote:So here's my thinking. We kind of have 4 options as I see it for unemployed poor people. 1. Let them starve and die.2. They end up in jail/prison.3. Give them government assistance.4. They get a job.I don't think it's a terrible idea for the government to give them a job and make them work for it instead of the government just paying for them to live in jail/prison or give them welfare. I could see it argued that paying them $15 an hour is too much, but if you don't pay them a living wage, they're back on government assistance.

The latter of your comment is best. Just ****ing pay people enough to keep up with inflation and stop shutting down jobs that people can do so there are even jobs left to grow in to. How long before the trucks drive themselves? Naw **** em! The humans can just figure it out. But please don't take muh tax breaks!

Mountaineer Buc wrote:The national conglomeration of associated and unified brotherhood of bail bondsmen will stridently oppose this bill.

Why isn't Bernie thinking about their jobs!!!!!!!

And if there's no bail bondsmen, who pays the bounty hunters? Don't even get me started on all the people involved in creating the "reality" shows that follow said bounty hunters... this rabbit hole goes deep.

Under Sanders' proposal, the estate tax would be progressive and apply to estates worth more than $3.5 million. The government would take 45 percent of estates worth between $3.5 million and $10 million, 50 percent of estates worth between $10 million and $50 million, 55 percent of estates worth between $50 million and $1 billion, and 77 percent of estates worth more than $1 billion.

Oh! So if an immigrant sends $100 a month to his mother we want to tax that because he's ripping us off, but if an immigrant owns a fortune 500 company and stashes $100 million in Switzerland we don't tax that because it's punishing success.

For each of the last three years, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has delivered his own response to President Trump's State of the Union speech. Tonight he will do the same.

But this year, some Democrats have a problem with it. That's because the party chose Stacey Abrams, who recently lost her bid for governor of Georgia, to deliver the official Democratic response.

"Stacey Abrams is a great choice to deliver the Democratic response," said Sanders in a statement. "I'm very much looking forward to her speech. For the third year in a row, following the Democratic rebuttal I'll be on Facebook Live, Twitter and YouTube to respond to Trump."

Sanders giving his own response, after Abrams gives hers, should be completely inoffensive. And yet some in the liberal coalition think Sanders has got some nerve: He's a white man, choosing to speak, even though party leadership has chosen a black woman to speak. (Doesn't he know it's Black History Month? For shame.)

#Resistance conspiracy theorist Louise Mensch was apoplectic on Twitter. "We already have to listen to one old white male traitor advance the Kremlin's interests, we don't need two," she wrote.

Mensch, of course, does not speak for sane Democrats. But a more respected voice, MSNBC's Chris Hayes, predicted Sanders' commitment to doing the rebuttal—again, something he does every year—"will grate/alienate." It appears he was right: Many on social media dragged Sanders for daring to speak out of turn.

"Why is he talking over the black woman our party chose to speak for us?" asked the feminist author Amy Siskind. (Again, Sanders is not talking over anyone.) "This is disrespecting black women, the most important and reliable part of our base. He can speak another night. This is Stacey Abrams' night. She was the one the party chose. Nope. This is not his night!"

This all sounds strangely familiar. Sanders, of course, was attacked by many of the very same people for seeking the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and delaying Hillary Clinton's coronation. One might have expected these ill-feelings to have dissipated after Clinton's embarrassing loss to Donald Trump—a contest Sanders plausibly might have won—but if anything, they seem to have intensified.

For each of the last three years, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has delivered his own response to President Trump's State of the Union speech. Tonight he will do the same.

But this year, some Democrats have a problem with it. That's because the party chose Stacey Abrams, who recently lost her bid for governor of Georgia, to deliver the official Democratic response.

"Stacey Abrams is a great choice to deliver the Democratic response," said Sanders in a statement. "I'm very much looking forward to her speech. For the third year in a row, following the Democratic rebuttal I'll be on Facebook Live, Twitter and YouTube to respond to Trump."

Sanders giving his own response, after Abrams gives hers, should be completely inoffensive. And yet some in the liberal coalition think Sanders has got some nerve: He's a white man, choosing to speak, even though party leadership has chosen a black woman to speak. (Doesn't he know it's Black History Month? For shame.)

#Resistance conspiracy theorist Louise Mensch was apoplectic on Twitter. "We already have to listen to one old white male traitor advance the Kremlin's interests, we don't need two," she wrote.

Mensch, of course, does not speak for sane Democrats. But a more respected voice, MSNBC's Chris Hayes, predicted Sanders' commitment to doing the rebuttal—again, something he does every year—"will grate/alienate." It appears he was right: Many on social media dragged Sanders for daring to speak out of turn.

"Why is he talking over the black woman our party chose to speak for us?" asked the feminist author Amy Siskind. (Again, Sanders is not talking over anyone.) "This is disrespecting black women, the most important and reliable part of our base. He can speak another night. This is Stacey Abrams' night. She was the one the party chose. Nope. This is not his night!"

This all sounds strangely familiar. Sanders, of course, was attacked by many of the very same people for seeking the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and delaying Hillary Clinton's coronation. One might have expected these ill-feelings to have dissipated after Clinton's embarrassing loss to Donald Trump—a contest Sanders plausibly might have won—but if anything, they seem to have intensified.

Poor Bernie. He spends decades not being able to eat at the same table as Democrats despite voting like them until he finally runs for President, when Hillary/DNC undercut him and basically took his platform.

Now that the DNC has adopted most of his ideas as their own, he's going to be excommunicated for being old, white, and male.

DreadNaught wrote:Poor Bernie. He spends decades not being able to eat at the same table as Democrats despite voting like them until he finally runs for President, when Hillary/DNC undercut him and basically took his platform.

Now that the DNC has adopted most of his ideas as their own, he's going to be excommunicated for being old, white, and male.

For each of the last three years, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has delivered his own response to President Trump's State of the Union speech. Tonight he will do the same.

But this year, some Democrats have a problem with it. That's because the party chose Stacey Abrams, who recently lost her bid for governor of Georgia, to deliver the official Democratic response.

"Stacey Abrams is a great choice to deliver the Democratic response," said Sanders in a statement. "I'm very much looking forward to her speech. For the third year in a row, following the Democratic rebuttal I'll be on Facebook Live, Twitter and YouTube to respond to Trump."

Sanders giving his own response, after Abrams gives hers, should be completely inoffensive. And yet some in the liberal coalition think Sanders has got some nerve: He's a white man, choosing to speak, even though party leadership has chosen a black woman to speak. (Doesn't he know it's Black History Month? For shame.)

#Resistance conspiracy theorist Louise Mensch was apoplectic on Twitter. "We already have to listen to one old white male traitor advance the Kremlin's interests, we don't need two," she wrote.

Mensch, of course, does not speak for sane Democrats. But a more respected voice, MSNBC's Chris Hayes, predicted Sanders' commitment to doing the rebuttal—again, something he does every year—"will grate/alienate." It appears he was right: Many on social media dragged Sanders for daring to speak out of turn.

"Why is he talking over the black woman our party chose to speak for us?" asked the feminist author Amy Siskind. (Again, Sanders is not talking over anyone.) "This is disrespecting black women, the most important and reliable part of our base. He can speak another night. This is Stacey Abrams' night. She was the one the party chose. Nope. This is not his night!"

This all sounds strangely familiar. Sanders, of course, was attacked by many of the very same people for seeking the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and delaying Hillary Clinton's coronation. One might have expected these ill-feelings to have dissipated after Clinton's embarrassing loss to Donald Trump—a contest Sanders plausibly might have won—but if anything, they seem to have intensified.

LOL!! It's about their gender and the color of their skin...not their actually...well...platform. ****ing DNC and MSM.

It's the same **** with Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard. Kamala Harris should be the candidate because, you know, it would be so awesome for a minority woman to be president. No mention of her shitty past. Tulsi Gabbard, however, hates gays (despite being maybe the most pro-LGBTQ person in congress) and is an Assad puppet (despite calling him a brutal dictator). No mention of Gabbard being a woman and minority.An article about the same thing as that video I posted in the Dem 2020 thread (the video is was better, though). And of course you don't see this type of thing mentioned in the MSM...